Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
This is only relevant if you believe that since some constraints are justified, therefore any and all constraints are justified.
Would it be justified, for instance, to forbid people to eat plums because the stones are a choking hazard? I don't think any reasonable person would agree with that. You have not done the work to show that a fighting ban in hockey falls into the category of reasonable rather than unreasonable restraints.
I happen to agree with your conclusion in this particular instance, but you need to sharpen up your argument. Otherwise you are merely preaching to the converted, and you may even deconvert a few of those.
|
Think of how many hockey games you have watched where a fight did not occur. Now think of how many hockey games you have watched where a fight occurred.
Was there a measurable difference between value or your enjoyment in either instance?